BENEFICIAL CONSTRUCTION :
Beneficial construction is also known as liberal construction. It means interpretation of a
statute in the widest possible meaning of the language permitted. The mischief in the language
is remedied by liberal and beneficial construction. Beneficial construction is an interpretation to
secure remedy to the victim who is unjustly denied the relief. Such beneficial construction is
mainly applicable in social welfare and labour legislations.
(i) Rule of beneficial construction :
If the natural meaning of the words are not able to achieve the object of the statute,
extended meaning may be given to them if they are capable of receiving that meaning. If in
legislation, the general object is to benefit a particular class of persons, and any provision is
ambiguous so that it is capable of two meanings, one of which would preserves the benefit and
another which would take it away, the meaning, which preserves it, should be adopted. Where a
court has to choose between a wide meaning, which in its opinion-carries out the object of the
legislature more fully, a narrow meaning carries it less fully, the court will often choose the
farmer. Beneficial construction is a tendency, rather than a recognized rule. Where the language
used by the legislature fails to achieve the object of the statute, a more extended meaning could
be given to it to achieve that object.
Many a time the English courts have beneficially interpreted such statutes as are dealing
with jurisdiction or procedure of the courts. Beneficent statutes have sometimes been called by
the name of social welfare legislations also and they have been interpreted in such a manner as
would achieve the beneficial object. The Supreme Court observed that when material words can
be construed in two ways one of which is likely to defeat the object of the statute while the other
is likely to achieve it, the latter construction should prevail. But if the words are capable of giving
only one meaning to the enactment, that meaning alone should be presumed to be the intention
of the legislature. It was held that the provision was inapplicable in situations where a decree of
enactment had already been obtained by the landlord.
In Baldev Sahai v. R.C. Bhasin, AIR 1982 SC 1091, the tenant who was living in the
house with his parents, two sisters and brother left India to permanently settle down in Canada
leaving his mother and brother in the house who kept on paying the rent regularly. The landlord
filed an application of ejectment of the tenant on the ground of non-residence of the tenant
under Section 14(1) (d) and (e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 alleging that his mother and
brother could not be treated as members of his family. It was held by the Supreme Court that
the word “family” must be given a wider meaning so as to include not only the head of the family
but all members or descendants from the common ancestors who are actually living with the
same head. The enactment, a beneficial provision, must be meaningfully construed so as to
advance the object of the Act and curing any lacuna or defect appearing in the same naturally
therefore, family included near relations of the head of the family.
The discussions above have shown the application of the principle of beneficial
construction. It is however, important to note that such a construction will be given by the court
only if words of the beneficent statute so disclose. There have been many instances where the
courts have refused to apply the principle because the instances of the beneficial statute were
unambiguously pointing out the intention of the legislature to the contrary.
Beneficial construction is also known as liberal construction. It means interpretation of a
statute in the widest possible meaning of the language permitted. The mischief in the language
is remedied by liberal and beneficial construction. Beneficial construction is an interpretation to
secure remedy to the victim who is unjustly denied the relief. Such beneficial construction is
mainly applicable in social welfare and labour legislations.
(i) Rule of beneficial construction :
If the natural meaning of the words are not able to achieve the object of the statute,
extended meaning may be given to them if they are capable of receiving that meaning. If in
legislation, the general object is to benefit a particular class of persons, and any provision is
ambiguous so that it is capable of two meanings, one of which would preserves the benefit and
another which would take it away, the meaning, which preserves it, should be adopted. Where a
court has to choose between a wide meaning, which in its opinion-carries out the object of the
legislature more fully, a narrow meaning carries it less fully, the court will often choose the
farmer. Beneficial construction is a tendency, rather than a recognized rule. Where the language
used by the legislature fails to achieve the object of the statute, a more extended meaning could
be given to it to achieve that object.
Many a time the English courts have beneficially interpreted such statutes as are dealing
with jurisdiction or procedure of the courts. Beneficent statutes have sometimes been called by
the name of social welfare legislations also and they have been interpreted in such a manner as
would achieve the beneficial object. The Supreme Court observed that when material words can
be construed in two ways one of which is likely to defeat the object of the statute while the other
is likely to achieve it, the latter construction should prevail. But if the words are capable of giving
only one meaning to the enactment, that meaning alone should be presumed to be the intention
of the legislature. It was held that the provision was inapplicable in situations where a decree of
enactment had already been obtained by the landlord.
In Baldev Sahai v. R.C. Bhasin, AIR 1982 SC 1091, the tenant who was living in the
house with his parents, two sisters and brother left India to permanently settle down in Canada
leaving his mother and brother in the house who kept on paying the rent regularly. The landlord
filed an application of ejectment of the tenant on the ground of non-residence of the tenant
under Section 14(1) (d) and (e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 alleging that his mother and
brother could not be treated as members of his family. It was held by the Supreme Court that
the word “family” must be given a wider meaning so as to include not only the head of the family
but all members or descendants from the common ancestors who are actually living with the
same head. The enactment, a beneficial provision, must be meaningfully construed so as to
advance the object of the Act and curing any lacuna or defect appearing in the same naturally
therefore, family included near relations of the head of the family.
The discussions above have shown the application of the principle of beneficial
construction. It is however, important to note that such a construction will be given by the court
only if words of the beneficent statute so disclose. There have been many instances where the
courts have refused to apply the principle because the instances of the beneficial statute were
unambiguously pointing out the intention of the legislature to the contrary.
